The mindsets of the conferences have differed, though we tend to believe they share consistent goals. It's pretty clear what the SEC and BIG have intended to do, though their strategies, priorities, methodologies, and results certainly show distinctions. Have to hand it to the SEC, they know how to pick 'em with the right timing. Some others made fine selections too, but messiness certainly hasn't been avoided across the board.

The trouble with the B12 is knowing what they really want. What are their long-term goals? What do they want to look like in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years? They haven't answered the question for themselves, let alone share that with others. I doubt Bowlsby came in with a plan for a grand 12 to 16 member conference, with all the marketing analysis done and how to exploit the assessable demograhics in an obtainable way. Even TCU & WVU were picked before Bowlsby arrived.

Tkalmus may be right, it's about hanging on to 2025 or so to exit the forest on this.

The GoR was to keep no else from leaving. OK, that's to stop bleeding, but it's not a vision beyond the status quo.It can't all be blamed on the former Texas operatives seeking to enhance the kingpin role and control 9 playmates who would be insecure otherwise.Greater control is one thing, loss value is another.

If it's all about how the new playoffs go as to whether or not the B12 pursue's growth, then that's a very narrow prism to reach a new judgment.

The trouble with the B12 is knowing what they really want. What are their long-term goals? What do they want to look like in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years? They haven't answered the question for themselves, let alone share that with others. I doubt Bowlsby came in with a plan for a grand 12 to 16 member conference, with all the marketing analysis done and how to exploit the assessable demograhics in an obtainable way. Even TCU & WVU were picked before Bowlsby arrived.

Good stuff. I don't know if applying for the CCG with only ten teams really counts as a "vision statement" other than "have our cake and eat it, too." They knew the NCAA rules. There was case history there. What were they thinking?

Quote:

If it's all about how the new playoffs go as to whether or not the B12 pursue's growth, then that's a very narrow prism to reach a new judgment.

Strangely, now that the ACC might approach how they determine their CCG's qualifiers, the Big XII may watch that endeavor closely. The ACC might have an ally in the Big XII, who may have tried to squash the expansion topic out of the concern of a quality game with enhanced playoff implications.

Looking back, some fellows in the B12 country media got some non-weather forecasts wrong two and a half years ago, reflecting about the Oklahoma factor more specifically.

Berry Tramel of newok in a Sept. 13, 2011 article, aside from the arguments on why Texas A&M needed to stay in the Big12, presented a view of why Oklahoma says no to the SEC. Of course resort to the same ole culture & academics material against the SEC to make the case. My goodness Mr. Tramel, Texas A&M is doing well in the SEC, Missouri took that 14th spot and won a division in football their second year, and the B12 took TCU and scholarly West Virginia to round out getting back to 10. Big12 said no to Louisville who ended up in the ACC. OU was known to have supported Louisville for the Big12. Is OU really Harvard on the plains and choose their company on this assumed criteria?

If the local or regional media is the mouthpiece for a school, probably not a good idea to insult a potentially plausible option. In OU's situation, retaining conference ties with Texas and OSU were deemed essential. If that can't work out for OU in going elsewhere, then cite the real reasons. In comparison, Texas looked much less shrouded in what they were trying to do, even if some of their judgments seemed questionable even among their own legion.

The PAC12 gave that offer that included UT, OU, and OSU. So controversy over tier and re-broadcasting rights with Texas put a halt to it. Later, the PAC12 said no to OU and OSU, so Texas was the real desire of the PAC12. So OU, you made yourself a dependant in self perception as well as, circumstantially, to others. OU requires that Texas coat-tail and the OSU sister act.Maybe in the future, minds change, and the PAC12 package deal gets back on the table with Texas complying.

The BigTen adding just KU and OU? That's a two-way complication as well.

I think one also has to look at expansion from the perspective of content generation and the additional income/revenue from that. More than just network footprints, I've always felt content was the easiest way to money. Programs that assist in meeting bowl tie-in's and basketball credits. That's where the easy money is made, and therein, you have competitive programs that people come out to support and that draw attention regionally and nationally.

I think Utah is one of the biggest busts so far in the last five years of major conference acquisitions, simply because they were already within the footprint after Colorado, they aren't an academic juggernaut, they've only had one bowl eligible year, and their hoops (who have traditionally been their better program) have been pretty much lifeless. Colorado isn't much better for football, although two basketball bids in the PAC's worst stretch of basketball in recency is something to cheer (and may again represent the PAC this season).

In Big XII land, WVU and TCU could have all the makings of Utah, parts 2 and 3. Face it, the travel is killing WVU hoops, and TCU will probably always be garbage in that sport. Football had a double set-back this past season (not to mention those memorable pics of TCU's empty stadium) with both programs, taken for their football consistency, both falling short of bowl eligibility. Neither will play in the MBB tournament this year (well, unless WVU has a miracle run in them).

What confounds the need for expansion, though, is that the Big XII is still having a pretty good go at things with these ten members. They sent nine teams bowling in 2012-13 and six in 2013-14, and sent five teams to the men's hoops tournament in 2013 (tied for third-most bids by a conference), with a good shot at least five (probably six) this season (probably good enough for second or third-most again).

So, while the Big XII is doing well enough in football and basketball on the whole, its newest members just aren't the ones necessarily making it better (I know, it's too soon). What happens if expansion candidates don't add much to these pots, even if we see the ACC succeed in altering the determinants for CCQ qualifiers, possibly relieving some of the fears the Big XII has in the expansion topic?

Part of me feels that if the Big XII doesn't make invitations during the 2014 calendar year, and we see something of a flop in the Big Ten and ACC this next season, maybe the Big XII really does stay at ten, or only go to eleven and not enter into the realm of divisions again for the duration of this GoR/network contract. The case for sustaining this number may be made for them: quality over quantity, if in the quantity doesn't exist the quality.

As we saw, most expansion teams don't do well in their new conference, Utah, Colorado, TCU, WVU, and Nebraska. The exceptions thus far are mizzou and TAMU, interesting enough both in the SEC. Things may change with time. In this context there just aren't any reasonable expectation for any Big XII candidates to raise the competitive bar as new members for the conference. And given the problem WVU is having with travel, I wonder how much more appealing Rice and Tulane become as academic takes for 11th and 12th.

As we saw, most expansion teams don't do well in their new conference, Utah, Colorado, TCU, WVU, and Nebraska. The exceptions thus far are mizzou and TAMU, interesting enough both in the SEC. Things may change with time. In this context there just aren't any reasonable expectation for any Big XII candidates to raise the competitive bar as new members for the conference. And given the problem WVU is having with travel, I wonder how much more appealing Rice and Tulane become as academic takes for 11th and 12th.

It has been interesting because it makes us try to look for an explanation. Since Missouri and TAMU didn't have an instant boost to their recruiting in those first year upon joining, it would lead one to think that the schools already had good enough talent. Yet, when in the Big 12, both schools weren't necessarily as good as they were in the SEC. So then you think...maybe the SEC is overrated. But then you look at the cold-hard fact that the SEC dominated in football national titles for most of the past decade.

As we saw, most expansion teams don't do well in their new conference, Utah, Colorado, TCU, WVU, and Nebraska. The exceptions thus far are mizzou and TAMU, interesting enough both in the SEC. Things may change with time. In this context there just aren't any reasonable expectation for any Big XII candidates to raise the competitive bar as new members for the conference. And given the problem WVU is having with travel, I wonder how much more appealing Rice and Tulane become as academic takes for 11th and 12th.

It has been interesting because it makes us try to look for an explanation. Since Missouri and TAMU didn't have an instant boost to their recruiting in those first year upon joining, it would lead one to think that the schools already had good enough talent. Yet, when in the Big 12, both schools weren't necessarily as good as they were in the SEC. So then you think...maybe the SEC is overrated. But then you look at the cold-hard fact that the SEC dominated in football national titles for most of the past decade.

SEC is overhyped. I think anyone would recognize that they have more really good team in alomst any given year. You could take the top 3 or 4 and put them against another top 3 or 4 from any other conference and in most years the SEC would win. However the bottom of the SEC is just like the bottom of any other conference, and their mid-ranked schools aren't all that great either. That's where the SEC is overrated/hyped.

A&M and Mizzou had good years in the Big 12, A&M played in the Cotton bowl in 2010, and Mizzou played in a Big 12 championship game in '07 & '08 and was also #1 in the nation in '07 too. I think they've done better than expected against a few big named teams, though part of the reason they were so "good" is that they a different, especially when you look at their offenses which is a product from being in the Big 12 and recruiting Big 12 type players. Let's see how it shapes up in 5 years, A&M could maintain, but I think Mizzou will have trouble especially when rest of the East gets back on its feet again.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

my inclination is that both Mizzou and aTm are aberration this year due to1. coming from being contenders in a strong Big 12 to equivalently competitive though more top dominated SEC2. an off year for many SEC teams like Florida and Georgia, and even LSU

my inclination is that both Mizzou and aTm are aberration this year due to1. coming from being contenders in a strong Big 12 to equivalently competitive though more top dominated SEC2. an off year for many SEC teams like Florida and Georgia, and even LSU

Whether both schools went 11-1 or 6-6, the fact that both went bowling (and this being aTm's second time doing so in two years as a SEC school) meant these schools added to the bowl revenue pot. Still, be it a tip-top SEC or a "down year," going bowling and being in the best FBS conference is something remarkable. It took more time for Arky and USC to do it when they joined something like 20+ years ago, and the SEC was not much back then.

Let's hope both WVU and TCU failing to make bowls this past season isn't a routine. TCU especially, since it didn't do much to push the reach of the conference.

if they take another Texas team (which is highly unlikely imo) it will be either Houston or Rice to solidify the Houston market which is now somewhat divided with the SEC.

It'll be Houston, if they do. Rice is a great school with incredible academics, but, athletically, they don't fit in with the Power 5 conferences. I love Rice to death and have friends that went there, but they don't belong unfortunately. If Houston football shows some definite life in the American in the next couple years and if their basketball program begins to perform a little better, I can definitely see them getting a XII invite. They'll have a new 40,000 seat stadium that could probably be expanded. Rice would then take Houston's place in the American.

#11 and 12 will be amongBYU as the best still available in terms of brand, competitiveness and new marketUCF for the large alumni base, new market and to recruit in FloridaCincinnati for proximity to WVU and market

IMHO the only school in Texas that will be considered, and only if the move is to Big XIV would be RiceThe conference lost 3-4 AAU schools with Colorado, Missouri, and aTm, +/- Nebraska and by this point on field competitiveness won't matter with and already strong BigXII. The other will be Tulane.

if they take another Texas team (which is highly unlikely imo) it will be either Houston or Rice to solidify the Houston market which is now somewhat divided with the SEC.

It'll be Houston, if they do. Rice is a great school with incredible academics, but, athletically, they don't fit in with the Power 5 conferences. I love Rice to death and have friends that went there, but they don't belong unfortunately. If Houston football shows some definite life in the American in the next couple years and if their basketball program begins to perform a little better, I can definitely see them getting a XII invite. They'll have a new 40,000 seat stadium that could probably be expanded. Rice would then take Houston's place in the American.

Don't disagree with your logic but let me sell you the other side.

Tech and Houston have been battling each other for state funds for years so they are not exactly on good terms. Texas isn't an ally of Houston with either.

Rice is on great terms with Texas, Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma has been working more closely with Rice in order to gain their favor for a future AAU spot.

Iowa State and Kansas, beside both also being AAU, won't want to take a school that could end up better than them if they have a choice in the same market.

So only West Virginia, Okie State, and K State would rather take Houston over Rice IMO and the latter two could be persuaded by OU/KU.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum